Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Mike DeAgro's experience co-founding a nonprofit advocacy organization lead to a career in the legal field? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Whether Defamatory Statements Constitute Libel Per Se

Securities Litigation Commentator


December 7, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case where defendant carried out a personal vendetta against the plaintiff following plaintiff's report against defendant for violations of securities laws. Following investigation and dismissal of defendant after plaintiff's report, defendant made defamatory statements to plaintiff's new employers that plaintiff allege caused his terminations from those employers. The court ruled the defamatory statements constituted libel per se and the plaintiff may recover damages.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Shah vs. Levy, No. 13 Civ. 2975 (S.D. N.Y., 10/31/16) 

*A temporal relation between a defendant's defamatory communications to the plaintiff's employer and the termination of the plaintiff creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the former caused the latter.
**Defamatory statements that charge a person with committing a crime or cause injury to his profession or business constitute libel per se, for which the party libeled may recover for damage to his reputation, humiliation and mental anguish. 

This case involves a bizarre story of Defendant's personal vendetta against Plaintiff in which he promised to "'follow [Plaintiff] to the ends of this earth to make your life as miserable as you made mine and everyone else's.'" 

Between 2007 and 2009, while the parties worked as research analysts at the same brokerage firm, Plaintiff reported to the FBI, SEC, FINRA and his supervisors that Defendant was violating the securities laws. While not disclosed in the Court opinion, it appears that Defendant was commenting about financial matters on one or more financial websites/blogs under various aliases during business hours. Defendant purportedly lied to his firm and the firm's outside counsel about his activities during their and FINRA's investigation into Plaintiff's claims. After finally admitting his actions, Defendant was "permitted to resign" in 2009. In 2011, Defendant accepted, in settlement with FINRA, a $5,000 fine and six month suspension. Defendant's BrokerCheck report reflects that he has not been registered with any firm since 2009.

In the instant case, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant carried out his vendetta by sending disparaging emails about him to two employers. Some emails were sent under alleged aliases, and claimed that the sender had reported Plaintiff's actions to FINRA. Plaintiff claimed that both employers terminated him because of Defendant's disparaging emails, and sought damages under theories of tortious interference with contractual relations and defamation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that no reasonable jury could find that his emails caused Plaintiff's terminations. The Court denies the motion on the tortious interference claim, finding the temporal relation between Defendant's emails and the employers' actions sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The Court similarly denies the motion on the defamation claim, characterizing Defendant's emails as libel per se, for which damages to one's reputation and for personal humiliation and mental anguish are presumed. The Court leaves proof of the damages for trial. 

One is tempted to say that the key lesson of this case is: "No good deed goes unpunished."

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.